Modeled after the Americans for Disabilities Act (signed by Bush 1 in 1990), an UN treaty calling for all countries to move towards the goal of global wheelchair access was voted down yesterday in the Senate by 38 Republicans. In NO way would the ratification of this treaty effect ANY person living in the US. Yet they killed it based on some really wacky tinfoil hat bs about abortion and home schooling. None of which is true.

To the Republican members of this board...how do you feel about this? The rest of the world is looking at us like we are fools. And Bob Dole - one of your greatest ever, and sitting in a wheelchair - watched as members of his own party shook his hand and then voted against him and the bill.

It's a very sad day for America when we can't even agree that people in wheelchairs around the world deserve equal access.

/FTR - I have an uncle with Downs (wheelchair bound) and a very good paraplegic friend. They aren't affected by this, but 10% of the worlds population is disabled. And we need to lead, not be petulant children.

I encourage anyone fed up with the current state of our government to look into the modern Whig party. It is a pragmatic, common sense, centrist-oriented party where rational solutions trump ideology and integrity trumps impunity.

This historical Party dating back to the 1600s in England was reborn by service members in Afghanistan and Iraq who where fed up with the deep ideological divide between the GOP and Democratic parties.

Modern Whigs are neither Conservative nor Liberal and do not wish to be confined to the traditional left-right political spectrum. In fact, in a purely historical or classic context, we can be considered Conservative Liberals.

I used to consider myself a Republican , but became disenfranchised when the party allied itself with the religious right,and started dictating morality. That's when I was turned on the the modern Whigs.

"I don't think they're building chemical weapons in Berea. But they might be. I can't say for sure."Chuck Klosterman

"Evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory are all lies from the pit of hell"- From a Congressmen who sits on the Science & Technology committee. He then proceeds to prattle on about Young Earth bullshit in what appears to be Peek's wet dream of deer slaughter.

Cerebral_DownTime wrote:"Evolution, embryology, and the Big Bang Theory are all lies from the pit of hell"- From a Congressmen who sits on the Science & Technology committee. He then proceeds to prattle on about Young Earth bullshit in what appears to be Peek's wet dream of deer slaughter.

Sea Foam Green wrote:So if I understand correctly, you want the U.S. to lead the way on a subject they lead the way on 20 years ago, in a manner that won't help anybody, anywhere?

I'm upset they even spent time voting on it, not about the outcome.

Last I checked, It was the JOB of Congress to spend time voting on things. But you're quite correct, I'm sure that hour they spent voting on an international treaty could have been better utilized drinking Mimosas and getting blown.

I didn't see anything about it on Drudge, is this really an issue or something more symbolic? Are you saying this wasn't going to cost anyone anything.

Now if you'd said a bunch of repubbies are concerned about being involved in some global UN tax or giving any kind of oversight over anything we do here, I'd say damn right fuck the UN and any kind of global authority. If this meant giving some idiot from the UN some kind of auditing against Americans I'd be dead against that.... However it doesn't sound like that is the issue here?

Without reading up on it, I am trying to figure out how abortion fits into this.

Boo, if we already have this with ADA, why do we need to go along with anything from the UN? My concern would be if there is any kind of international registry for the handicapped or if there was any kind of UN oversight over anyone or anything in the US. This doesn't seem like something that should be in a treaty.

dmiles wrote:If this was a Treaty, doesn't that imply 2/3 of the Senate?

Boo, if we already have this with ADA, why do we need to go along with anything from the UN? My concern would be if there is any kind of international registry for the handicapped or if there was any kind of UN oversight over anyone or anything in the US. This doesn't seem like something that should be in a treaty.

Zero changes to American low or sovereignty. ZERO. All this would do is establish the ADA as a model for other countries to follow. So if say, Costa Rica, ratified the treaty they would work towards implementing a similar version of the ADA. 150+ countries have signed, as of last count 126 or so ratified. So now those countries are going to work on changing their building codes to allow more access.

This is not an issue of the UN going to your home and demanding you have to have a wheelchair ramp if you homeschool your kids. And that was the nonsense reason the Republicans blocked it. Right in front of Bob Dole...who was sitting in a fucking wheelchair.

This was just spite. And embarrassing...all those hypocritical jackass who spew pandering bullshit about how America is a "Beacon of Hope" and "A model of Leadership" just voted down a treaty that W. Bush signed simply because they couldn't stand for the President to garner a Pyrrhic victory just before the "fiscal cliff" vote. So now the country on whom the treaty is based isn't going to ratify it. Brilliant!

- And yes..2/3 = 66 votes for a treaty.

/Jon Stewart tonight explains it far better than me. Check out the Daily Show website if you'd like to see (I'll linky when its up...tomorrow).

Do you hold the UN at the same level of suspicion that many of us do? Also who cares if Bush signed it? Why should that matter to me? Those people are way more comfy with the international group-think than I care for (meaning all the damn Bushes).

Again I'll poke around but why does this have to be a treaty? Are they slipping some BS symbolic shit through now as a trial-run so that they can circumvent the US Constitution later on? Why was this done during a lame duck session with very little public debate?

I still go back to this, we have the ADA, what the fuck do we need to sign a treaty for? I'd say to Costa Rica, "hey we passed the ADA, call us up if you need some consultants, we've conducted all the lessons learned reviews, and can now recommend how to really be efficient in your roll-out (for a fee). "

dmiles wrote:Do you hold the UN at the same level of suspicion that many of us do? Also who cares if Bush signed it? Why should that matter to me? Those people are way more comfy with the international group-think than I care for (meaning all the damn Bushes).

Again I'll poke around but why does this have to be a treaty? Are they slipping some BS symbolic shit through now as a trial-run so that they can circumvent the US Constitution later on? Why was this done during a lame duck session with very little public debate?

I still go back to this, we have the ADA, what the fuck do we need to sign a treaty for? I'd say to Costa Rica, "hey we passed the ADA, call us up if you need some consultants, we've conducted all the lessons learned reviews, and can now recommend how to really be efficient in your roll-out (for a fee). "

No. I actually believe the UN is not some alien organization that wants to usurp the Constitution. Any "news" source or talk radio that tells you otherwise is exploiting your insecurities and fears for profit. I'd advise not listening to them and instead rely on critical thinking to base your decision making.

And I see that I'm wasting my time so I won't bother to argue further. Suffice to say that a great Republican - Bob Dole (who took one for the team and ran for President when he had NO chance at winning) was embarrassed by his own party that was voting on a largely symbolic act. The Republican Party that was my Dad's Republican Party has been replaced by a bunch of obstructionist wacko's.

Last edited by bookelly on Thu Dec 06, 2012 7:21 am, edited 1 time in total.